Substantially higher prevalence of postoperative periprosthetic fractures in octogenarians with hip fractures operated with a cemented, polished tapered stem rather than an anatomic stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose - Recent studies have demonstrated a high incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) in elderly patients treated with 2 commonly used cemented, polished tapered stems. We compared the prevalence and incidence rate of PPF in a consecutive cohort of octagenerians with femoral neck fractures (FNFs) treated with either a collarless, polished tapered (CPT) stem or an anatomic matte stem (Lubinus SP2). Patients and methods - In a multicenter, prospective cohort study, we included 979 hips in patients aged 80 years and above (72% females, median age 86 (80-102) years) with a femoral neck fracture as indication for surgery. 69% of the patients were classified as ASA class 3 or 4. Hip-related complications and repeat surgery were assessed at a median follow-up of 20 (0-24) months postoperatively. Results - 22 hips (2.2%) sustained a PPF at a median of 7 (0-22) months postoperatively; 14 (64%) were Vancouver B2 fractures. 7 of the 22 surgically treated fractures required revision surgery, mainly due to deep infection. The cumulative incidence of PPFs was 3.8% in the CPT group, as compared with 0.2% in the SP2 group (p < 0.001). The risk ratio (RR) was 16 (95% CI: 2-120) using the SP2 group as denominator. Interpretation - The CPT stem was associated with a higher risk of PPF than the SP2 stem. We suggest that the tapered CPT stem should not be used for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in patients over 80 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".